Com. v. Wallace, S., 913 EDA 2016

Background

Spencer K. Wallace was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, two VUFA counts, and possession of an instrument of crime (PIC) for the 2008 shooting death of Harry Ballard; sentenced to life plus consecutive terms.
Trial evidence showed Wallace confronted Ballard, was seen retrieving a gun in a blue bag, then shot Ballard five times, three to the chest; defense conceded the shooting’s occurrence was disputed as to perpetrator, not intent.
Wallace appealed and his direct appeal was affirmed; he later filed a timely PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective on multiple grounds related to jury instructions and trial conduct.
The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice then dismissed the petition as meritless; Wallace appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court.
On appeal Wallace alleged counsel was ineffective for: not objecting to jury charges on VUFA/PIC that allegedly directed a verdict or expressed the court’s opinion; highlighting uncontradicted facts/focusing on failure to testify; equating malice with specific intent; and failing to move for mistrial after victim’s mother testified the victim was a "straight-A" student.
The Superior Court reviewed for PCRA ineffectiveness standards (arguable merit, no reasonable strategic basis, prejudice) and affirmed the PCRA court, finding no arguable merit to Wallace’s claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Court’s PIC/VUFA charge allegedly directing verdict or expressing opinion	Wallace: jury instruction declared firearm was an instrument of crime and that it was possessed with intent to commit murder, effectively directing verdict / showing judge’s opinion	Commonwealth: facts (multiple chest shots) and trial focus were on identity/possession, so court properly narrowed issues and did not direct verdict	Court: No arguable merit; instruction clarified contested issue (possession) and did not improperly express opinion
2. Charge emphasizing uncontradicted facts and defendant’s failure to testify	Wallace: highlighting uncontradicted facts invited jurors to rely on defendant’s silence and violated due process	Commonwealth: charge read as whole instructed jury not to accept evidence solely because uncontradicted and forbade adverse inference from silence	Court: No arguable merit; overall charge warned jurors against crediting uncontradicted testimony as true and against drawing inference from silence
3. Equating malice with specific intent to kill (omitting other malice aspects)	Wallace: instruction collapsed malice into specific intent, omitting malice’s broader definitions and thereby misstating elements of first-degree murder	Commonwealth: instruction explained malice and differentiated first- and third-degree standards; law adequately presented	Court: No error; instruction, read as whole, accurately and adequately presented law; counsel not ineffective for failing to object
4. Failure to move for mistrial after victim’s mother’s testimony that victim was a "straight-A honor student"	Wallace: testimony irrelevant and elicited sympathy; counsel objected but did not move for mistrial or curative instruction	Commonwealth: the isolated, historical positive detail was not so inflammatory as to deny fair trial; jury was instructed not to be guided by sympathy	Court: No arguable merit; single statement did not deprive Wallace of fair trial; counsel not ineffective

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Anderson, 600 A.2d 577 (Pa. Super. 1991) (trial court may state uncontested facts to narrow issues when defendant concedes certain elements)
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 877 A.2d 433 (Pa. 2005) (jury charge must be read as whole; equating specific intent with malice acceptable where the overall instruction is accurate)
Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d 155 (Pa. 1978) (extreme examples of inflammatory testimony can require new trial when prejudice unavoidable)
Commonwealth v. Clifton, 414 A.2d 686 (Pa. Super. 1979) (isolated laudatory or non-inflammatory testimony about a victim may not warrant new trial)
Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (standard of appellate review for PCRA orders and requirements for ineffectiveness claims)